Lies v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation, 924 N.W.2d 448

Background

Off-duty Officer Laite reported a vehicle driving erratically near Ed’s Bait Shop in Devils Lake, identifying it only as a “white HHR”; no plate, driver description, or ongoing location was provided.
Within about 30 minutes, on-duty Officer Mlynar was surveilling a white HHR in a McDonald’s drive-thru; he later lost sight of the vehicle on Highway 2.
Approximately 55 minutes after the tip, Officer Rodriquez encountered and—at Mlynar’s instruction—stopped a white HHR on Highway 2; Rodriquez observed no traffic violations or erratic driving prior to the stop.
Lies, the driver, failed field sobriety tests and registered 0.12% BAC on the Intoxilyzer; his license was administratively suspended for 91 days.
The administrative hearing officer upheld the stop based on Laite’s reliability, Mlynar’s later surveillance of a white HHR, and an unsupported finding that white HHRs are uncommon; the district court affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed, concluding the record did not support that officers could properly identify the vehicle from the vague tip and that the hearing officer relied on unsupported factual findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the tip ("white HHR" only) supplied reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle	Laite’s tip and Mlynar’s subsequent surveillance gave reasonable suspicion to stop the HHR	The tip and later surveillance sufficed to identify and stop the vehicle	No — vague description and elapsed time did not permit reliable identification; stop lacked reasonable suspicion
Whether the hearing officer could infer white HHRs are uncommon without evidence	Lies: hearing officer erred by relying on unsupported factual conclusion	DOT: such an inference was reasonable under totality of circumstances	No — department bore burden to prove uncommonness and presented no evidence; inference unsupported
Whether officer inferences based on surveillance justified directing a stop after losing and later finding a similar vehicle	Lies: a mere hunch that the later vehicle was the same is insufficient	DOT: Mlynar’s observations and instruction to stop were reasonable investigative steps	No — extended time gap and lack of identifying details meant officers could not reasonably conclude it was the same vehicle
Whether administrative order violated Fourth Amendment rights	Lies: stop violated Fourth Amendment and ND Constitution; suppression of resulting license suspension appropriate	DOT: stop was lawful; administrative suspension valid	Court: constitutional violation — stop unreasonable; suspension reversed

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 893 N.W.2d 770 (2017) (standard for appellate review of agency driver’s license suspensions)
State v. Fasteen, 740 N.W.2d 60 (2007) (Fourth Amendment and ND constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
State v. Kenner, 559 N.W.2d 538 (1997) (officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop a vehicle)
City of Minot v. Keller, 745 N.W.2d 638 (2008) (mere curiosity or vague hunch insufficient for investigative stop)
State v. Olson, 729 N.W.2d 132 (2007) (use totality of circumstances and objective standard when assessing stop)
Schock v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 815 N.W.2d 255 (2012) (hearing officers may draw reasonable inferences using common sense)
Thorsrud v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 819 N.W.2d 483 (2012) (burden-shifting principles in administrative suspension cases)
State v. Bryl, 477 N.W.2d 814 (1991) (limited descriptive tips can justify a stop when corroborated quickly on-scene)
Kappel v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 602 N.W.2d 718 (1999) (mere hunch that a stopped vehicle matches a tip is insufficient)
State v. Neis, 469 N.W.2d 568 (1991) (describing when a caller’s detailed description supports reasonable suspicion)
State v. Miller, 510 N.W.2d 638 (1994) (limitations of general descriptions and misidentifications in supporting reasonable suspicion)
Anderson v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 696 N.W.2d 918 (2005) (dispatcher or officer knowledge gaps can defeat otherwise specific tips)